Real-World Experience With Apremilast in the Treatment of Adults With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis in Québec: A Claims-Based Analysis of Drug Utilization and Healthcare Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: In Québec, targeted biologic therapies for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis are restricted to patients who have not responded to phototherapy or conventional systemic treatment, primarily due to high drug costs. Apremilast, an oral treatment for plaque psoriasis, was added to the Québec provincial health insurance plan (Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec; RAMQ) formulary in 2015, making this the only province in Canada with public drug plan reimbursement for apremilast. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe patients' characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and associated costs and to measure real-world budget impact of using apremilast before biologics in plaque psoriasis. METHODS: This study was performed using RAMQ drug claims and medical services data. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis between January 2015 and December 2017 were identified. Medical services and prescription claims were categorized as all-cause and psoriasis-related. Using RAMQ database estimates, a 3-year budget impact analysis was developed comparing treatment cost with and without the addition of apremilast to the formulary. RESULTS: In all, 540 patients were identified (apremilast: n = 92; biologics: n = 448). Comorbidity burden and treatment persistence and adherence were comparable between apremilast and biologic users. The year following the index date, all-cause HCRU was lower for apremilast versus biologic users (CAN$19 763 vs CAN$28 025; P < .01), mainly driven by drug cost. Using apremilast before biologics resulted in an estimated RAMQ net savings of CAN$49 290 (2015), CAN$746 856 (2016), and CAN$1 216 512 (2017), and a total savings of CAN$2 012 658 since apremilast's addition to the formulary. CONCLUSION: Adding apremilast to the drug formulary of other Canadian provinces could result in significant healthcare savings.

Treatment of Medicare Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis who Cannot Afford Biologics or Apremilast.

Elderly patients are a group with a high frequency of psoriasis. Their disease burden has negative impacts on their quality of life. While there is a clear need to treat these patients, there are challenges in doing so. This work seeks to define the challenges that exist in treating elderly Medicare patients, as well as to provide treatment suggestions for providers to follow if they encounter one or more of these challenges. Providers face the following challenges when creating treatment plants for elderly patients with psoriasis: difficulty in obtaining drug coverage through Medicare, increased medical comorbidities, and polypharmacy. Providers aim for regimens that are affordable, safe, and efficacious, but it is not always clear how to achieve this combination, especially in elderly Medicare patients. This work is relevant in that it aims to explain the logistical roadblocks posed by Medicare coverage and provide solutions for commonly encountered issues in the treatment of a disabling and common disease in a high-risk population. Specifically, alternative treatment options to biologics and small-molecule inhibitors are discussed and include topical therapies, phototherapy, methotrexate, acitretin, and cyclosporine and for psoriatic arthritis include corticosteroids and leflunomide. The specific risks and benefits of these therapies in the elderly population are provided, allowing providers to make patient-specific decisions about optimal regimens.

Cost effectiveness of pomalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) patients who have progressed following treatment with both bortezomib and lenalidomide have a poor prognosis. In this late stage, other effective alternatives are limited, and patients in Sweden are often left with best supportive care. Pomalidomide is a new anti-angiogenic and immunomodulatory drug for the treatment of MM. Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pomalidomide as an add-on to best supportive care in patients with relapsed and refractory MM in Sweden. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We developed a health-economic discrete event simulation model of a patient's course through stable disease and progressive disease, until death. It estimates life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs from a societal perspective. Effectiveness data and utilities were taken from the MM-003 trial comparing pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone (HIDEX). Cost data were taken from official Swedish price lists, government sources and literature. RESULTS: The model estimates that, if a patient is treated with HIDEX, life expectancy is 1.12 years and the total cost is SEK 179 976 (€19 100), mainly indirect costs. With pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, life expectancy is 2.33 years, with a total cost of SEK 767 064 (€81 500), mainly in drug and indirect costs. Compared to HIDEX, pomalidomide treatment gives a QALY gain of 0.7351 and an incremental cost of SEK 587 088 (€62 400) consisting of increased drug costs (59%), incremental indirect costs (33%) and other healthcare costs (8%). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is SEK 798 613 (€84 900) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: In a model of late-stage MM patients with a poor prognosis in the Swedish setting, pomalidomide is associated with a relatively high incremental cost per QALY gained. This model was accepted by the national Swedish reimbursement authority TLV, and pomalidomide was granted reimbursement in Sweden.

The costs of drugs used to treat myelodysplastic syndromes following National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines.

Guidelines for management of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) have been generated by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Myelodysplastic Syndromes Panel. Because MDS is a heterogeneous spectrum of disorders, these patients have been categorized into prognostic subgroups, predominantly using the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS). Several drugs have been used to treat these patients, and their selection and sequential recommended use by the panel depend on disease characteristics and responses to treatment. Recombinant erythropoietin alfa and darbepoetin alfa have been the mainstay of therapy for treating anemia associated with MDS. The FDA has recently approved several other drugs for treating MDS, including azacytidine and decitabine for all stages of disease, lenalidomide for low-risk anemic patients with del(5q) chromosomal abnormality, and deferasirox for treating iron overload. For iron chelation, deferoxamine is also used occasionally. Treatment with immunosuppressive therapy (antithymocyte globulin and cyclosporin) has been therapeutically beneficial for a subset of younger patients with MDS. Because the financial cost of these therapies are substantial and have received only limited attention, this article evaluates the costs of specific drugs and their sequential use in the lower-risk IPSS (low and intermediate-1) subgroups based on the NCCN guidelines. Results estimate an average annual cost for potentially anemia-altering drugs of $63,577 per patient, ranging from $26,000 to $95,000, depending on the specific therapies. In patients for whom the therapies fail, annual costs for iron chelation plus red blood cell transfusions are estimated to average $41,412. The economic impact of drug therapy should be weighed against the patient's potential for improvement in clinical outcomes, quality of life, and transfusion requirements.